botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

(iii). apply a criterion for the main channel of annual flow which indiscriminately includes
upstream and flood non-directional flow, in total disregard of the use of the words in Article
III of "descends" and "channel" which clearly indicates continuous downstream flow in an
established course;
(iv). apply a criterion which is dependent on the extent of the floods which the Hydrographs
(at Annexes 60 and 61 of the Botswana Memorial, Vol.III, pp.466,468), show to vary from
year to year. Floods by nature vary in magnitude and the area flooded depends on the
magnitude of the flood. Furthermore, a floodplain occupies a zone and in no way can assist in
the determination of a boundary which is a linear feature. The criterion proposed by the
Namibian Government is therefore totally dependent on the indeterminate and variable
magnitude of the annual flood ;
(v). adopt the maximum spread of water in flood as a definition of "channel" thereby
confusing floodpath with directional flow down the gradient of the riverbed in a definite
channel;
(vi). abandon in entirety the previous position advanced by Namibia in relation to the
scientific evidence up to the signing of the Special Agreement in 1996. Namibia's
Memorandum submitted to the Joint Team of Technical Experts asserted that "Major floods
which occurred and frequent movement of sand by the tributaries of the Chobe River have
caused the southern channel to silt up", (Kasikili Island: The Government of the Republic of
Namibia's Position. Memorandum submitted to the Joint Team of Technical Experts, p.37).2
[2. It is not denied that such changes took place, but they occurred many thousands of years before the Anglo-
German Agreement. For the geomorphological history of the region the Court is respectfully referred to the
Second Opinion of Professor Sefe [Appendix 2] and Appendix 3 thereto.
vii). misinterpret the evidence relating to deposition of sediment, absence of erosion and
sediment bars.
259. The rest of this chapter will deal in greater detail with the major inaccuracies,
inconsistencies and contradictions involved in the 'Alexandrine' thesis. An Analysis of
Professor Alexander's Expert Report, carried out by Professor F.K.Sefe, exposes paragraph by
paragraph the misconceptions and misrepresentations contained in that report. The Court is
respectfully referred to that Analysis, which appears as Appendix 4 in Vol. II of the Counter-
Memorial, for the detailed examination of the 'Alexandrine' thesis.
(D) The limited expertise of Professor Alexander
260. It should be noted that Professor Alexander does not put himself forward as an expert in
the geomorphology or hydrology of the Chobe River. His experience and approach, as stated
in his curriculum vitae, indicates that he is a co-ordinator of information, assembled by
officials of the Water Affairs Department, relating to the ephemeral rivers located in the
Union of South Africa, which he then is required to apply to achieve solutions of immediate
problems. His publications, South African Flood Hydrology (1990) and Flood Risk Reduction
Measures (1993), and his reliance in his Report on Brink's Engineering Geology and a work
on laboratory experimentation with stream tables, clearly indicate this focus on solving
immediate problems of flood. He has carried out no field work, or hydrographic projects
relating to the Chobe River. His Report is described as being based on six personal visits and
satellite imageries, Namibian Memorial, Vol.VI,Part 1, Expert Report, p.1. His generalist and